tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50711523579289261622024-03-12T17:36:49.384-07:00IP (Patent) Innovation eMagazine .... MOVED ... www.IntellZine.comThis is general Intellectual Property (Patent) Magazine.
.... MOVED ... www.IntellZine.com
The focus of this blog is on IP, innovation and especially on patent commercialization.BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-46771701034398181452020-03-24T11:08:00.001-07:002020-03-24T11:08:09.839-07:00IPZine has moved ... .... MOVED ... www.IntellZine.comIPZine.blogspot.com has moved. MOVED... <br />
Please find it .... ... <a href="http://www.intellzine.com/">www.IntellZine.com</a><br />
.... MOVED ... <a href="http://www.intellzine.com/">www.IntellZine.com</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-51091086389822968972017-04-04T11:09:00.002-07:002017-04-04T11:09:55.034-07:00The End of a Patent Dynasty, IBM has been Dethroned<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>IBM </b>is no longer King of the Patent World! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Samsung now reigns supreme.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">US Patents for <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/09/most-patents-2016/" target="_blank">2016 by Fortune</a> by <span style="background-color: white; color: #202020;">IFI Claims Patent Services. IBM #1 with 8,052 patents issued. Samsung Electronics Co Lmt with 5,518. But, a better measure would have IBM coming in second in 2016, and even in 2015!... </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The other approach that consolidates <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/sqoop-patent-ranking-samsung-granted-more-patents-than-ibm-2016-2017-1" target="_blank">related companies here</a>, or more <a href="https://sqoop.com/blog/2017-01-10-most-inventive-companies-of-2016-based-on-patent-activity" target="_blank">directly from Sqoop here</a>. IBM #2 when Samsung has more patents collectively with 8,551 issued in 2016.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In terms of patent applications, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In terms of patent applications, Samsung really beats out IBM:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Samsung -- 10,695</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">International Business Machines Corporation -- 8,800</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Samsung is way ahead of #2 Microsoft in Design Patents with ~1,500 vs. ~500. IBM is not in to the top 40 in terms of US design patents (as would be expected for the type of products (services, really) that they produce.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #202020;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Wow, no 25 year run for IBM. A questionable 24 year run through 2016. And arguably, not even a 23 year.</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-13529081818036540472017-04-03T11:47:00.000-07:002017-04-03T11:47:04.310-07:00Tech Startup IPOs Better with Big Blue PatentsThe Strategic Business Planning Company has long championed an aggressive approach by startup companies that centers on obtaining a patent(s) on a new product/service at or near the time of market entry to offer unique value and competitive protection. V<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">ery young companies need funding.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Venture capitalists are a
major source of funding and, according to a study by the University of
California Berkeley Law School, “many investors place a premium on patents when
making investment decisions.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">In fact,
67% of firms surveyed indicated that the existence of patents were an important
factor in their investment decisions… proving that it doesn’t matter what
industry you are in a significant percentage of VCs place a premium of patents
when making investment decisions.”</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">(“Why
Patents Matter for Job Creation and Economic Growth,” Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog)
[For additional confirmation, see Shark Tank]</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">There
are other compelling reasons why patents are important. A paper entitled “</span><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704028" target="_blank"><span style="color: #1185a7; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Bright Side of Patents</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">” sites the economic benefits that patents bring to start-up
businesses. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Joan Farre-Mensa
of Harvard, Alexander Liunggvist and Deepak Hedge of
NYU studied all first-time patent applications filed at the US Patent and
Trademark Office (USPRO) by start-ups from 2001- 2013, 45,819 in total. They concluded that patent approvals help
startups create jobs and succeed.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> K</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">ey points from the research:</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The first patent application
increases a company’s employment growth over the next five years by 36%. The effect on sales growth – a 51%
increase – is even larger.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Approval of a patent
application increases a start-up’s probability of securing VC funding by 53% over companies without patents.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Patents more than double the
likelihood that a start-up is eventually listed on a stock exchange.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
To make your market introduction positioning even stronger, buy some patents from IBM before your IPO as described in this blog post from <i>iam-media.com: </i> http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=e5b4517b-6c86-4932-8451-6bb110c6b011. Banks, in addition to venture capitalists, look favorably on tech startups that have a patent portfolio from Big Blue which has sold 15,000 patents since 1991.<br />
<br />
IBM has been the leader in annual patent procurement for years and years. But, even in Big Blue, not all patents can be commercialized and many other patents are not consistent with its marketing strategies. For these reasons and, it turns out, for tax benefits, the company puts many patents on the market to supplement its licensing royalties.robertspen-TMSwritershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15410153502804625946noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-16931728976711029532017-04-03T07:52:00.000-07:002017-04-03T07:52:40.200-07:00When your IP gets the boot, AAPL boots IMGWoW.<br />
Imagination Technologies (IMG) dropped about 70% over the last day or so as Apple says that they will no use IMG's graphics processing (GPU) technology much longer. The stock dropped from a high of about $300 US to a low of $76. It dropped $180 in today's trading, stabilizing at about $90. You might have an issue when the largest company in the world says they don't intent to buy your products much longer, especially if they are your largest customer.<br />
<br />
Read <a href="http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/20170403878/apple-to-stop-using-imagination-technologies-graphics-technology.aspx" target="_blank">about it here</a>.<br />
<br />
Apple says that they will take other approached to get their graphics. IMG says that will be hard to do with their intellectual property protection.<br />
<br />
IMG is very similar to ARM Holding who makes the technology, not the products. But last year ARM got gobbled up by SoftBank (which owns Sprint), so Great Britain is becoming even less great the day or so after BrExit (wondering if any relation there). IPZine blogged <a href="http://ipzine.blogspot.com/2016/07/arm-holdings-is-giving-up-their-holding.html" target="_blank">about ARM holdings not holding out here</a>.<br />
<br />
Yes, intellectual property will be an interesting problem for the UK as they work out the divorce agreement(s) with the EU. BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-19687669386068279302017-03-28T14:18:00.000-07:002017-03-28T14:18:40.224-07:00Happy Days are near, but yet so far away, for Generic ViagraThe discussion on when pharma patents expire is often long and tortuous.<br />
The the ED world of Viagra and Cialis we discuss the <a href="http://ipzine.blogspot.com/2016/01/viagracialis-patents-soon-to-fall-on.html" target="_blank">2017 patent cliff here</a>.<br />
True, Cialis patent(s) expire in 2017, so it is reasonable to expect the influx of generics soon... Here's a list of patents <a href="https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-cialis.html" target="_blank">related to Cialis.</a> Note that there are a lot of patents listed that go all the way to 2020.<br />
<br />
Here is a great discussion about the expiration of Phara patents <a href="http://medcitynews.com/2017/01/drug-patents-expiring-2017-smoke-mirrors/?rf=1" target="_blank">related to Viagra</a>. One of the main patents in viagra falls into the 1995 rule where the expiration date is computed based on the longer of the old method (17 years from issue) and the new method (20 years from first filing date). The 20 years method would be long gone. It probably took Pfizer some very fancy footwork to delay issue of the Viagra patent for almost 10 years from first filing, so the 17 years method computes longest and works best for Viagra. Plus, they got a term extension, so the patent doesn't expire until April of 2020.<br />
<br />
But generic Viagra. A settlement with the giant of generics, Teva, allows Teva to sell a generic version of Viagra starting in December of 2017. But Teva must pay royalties to Pfizer. Pfizer recently raised prices, presumably to game this whole competition thing ensuing in 2017.<br />
<br />
Levitra faces expiration of patents in 2018.<br />
<br />
Great discussion on all <a href="https://www.accessrx.com/research/viagra-patent-expires/" target="_blank">these ED drugs is here at AccessRX</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course you could use another drug that is "a rose by another name": <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Neue Helvetica W01"; font-size: 16px;">Revatio. <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/drugs/yes-there-is-a-way-to-get-generic-viagra/" target="_blank">Consumer Reports on Revatio</a>is not in the business of making medical advised, but they suggest the the Revatio blood pressure drug might possibly work in the same way as Viagra since is contains the same active ingredient (</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Neue Helvetica W01"; font-size: 16px;">sildenafil)</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Neue Helvetica W01"; font-size: 16px;">. </span><br />
<br />
There is also a move to try to make the ED drugs an over-the-counter thing. Hmmm.<br />
<br />BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-90808290120425291392017-03-14T12:31:00.000-07:002017-03-14T14:30:01.382-07:00A Good News Story from an Unexpected Source<a href="http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=8b79a108-0a83-4610-b906-ac4f89a17811&vl=302218073" target="_blank">Here at IAM-Media</a> is an example of using patents to secure products in a global market.<br />
Its full strategic management of its 200 patents included creating barriers to entry and to transform the antenna industry. This approach does not take place overnight, more than a decade. The company began initially with patent protected product sales which was quite successful. Well into the market adoption, Fractus concluded that licensing for royalties was the best option for the future. It resulted in over $100m in royalties.<br />
<br />
Fractus also dealt with infringements by major companies and had to be helped by the Spanish courts. Overall, a good news story about the patent commercialization success of a small company.robertspen-TMSwritershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15410153502804625946noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-75361479959311179682017-03-08T08:17:00.000-08:002017-03-08T08:17:45.769-08:00Scenarios Now and the Genius (hidden) within Crowd via ScenarioPlans.com<br />
On a sister site, there is a discussion by DelphiMan about the state of scenario planning today, and some new research on ways to squeeze out the genius among laypeople crowds: S<i>cenarios Now and the Genius (hidden) within Crowd</i>,<br />
Check it out <a href="http://delphiplan.com/2017/03/04/scenarios-now-and-the-genius-hidden-within-crowd/" target="_blank">here on ScenarioPlans.com</a> (or DelphiPlan.com).<br />
First, a McKinsey study showed that CEOs really wished that they had done more scenario planning after the great recession. Before, really. But, now with almost 10 years in the rear-view mirror, it seems likely the idea of such vigilant planning for a flexible future has waned.<br />
In the meanwhile, the genius of crowds can still be used very effectively using a Delphi Method approach to capture the expertise of experts (or informed people).<br />
A very interesting new study used a crowd of laypeople. Even when the crowd is, on average, misinformed, it is possible to identify those people who are really informed and correctly assess the truth.<br />
This reminds me, but in reverse, of a Lee Iacocca story when he was at Ford (prior to the turn-around at Chrysler). They surveyed people in upscale communities to see if they would like to buy the new Ford sports kind of car being developed including a convertible version. The answer was, unequivocally, NO!. Lee sent his team back into the suburbs to ask again. But this time the question was two part: "Would you buy this car?" NO. Would your neighbor buy this car?" Absolutely YES!<br />
<b>The Ford Mustang took the market by <span style="font-size: large;">stampede</span>!....</b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems." </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Lee Iacocca ... </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lee_iacocca.html" target="_blank">from BrainyQuote.com </a></span>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-5776509333538073132017-01-20T08:54:00.000-08:002017-01-20T08:54:25.230-08:00XGame Innovation in Carbon CaptureLook at the great innovations up in Canada in the CCS xGames.<br />
<br />
Checkout the blog at SustainZine related to this very cool competition: <a href="http://sustainzine.blogspot.com/2017/01/co2-xgame-winners-in-canada-losers-in.html">http://sustainzine.blogspot.com/2017/01/co2-xgame-winners-in-canada-losers-in.html</a><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f3ffee;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15.4px;">Here's some info on this big competition in Canada: </span></span></span><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-teams-carbon-xprize-competition-1.3926868" style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #888888; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">CBC News discusses competition sponsored by Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and U.S. company NRG</a><span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">.</span><br />
<br />
Normally you think of Carbon Capture & Sequester as a dead cost. Take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (maybe at a smoke stack where it is highly concentrated, and pump it down into caverns, maybe where the coal or oil came from. But CO2 is a valuable and sell-able byproduct. Think about the fizz in your pop.<br />
<br />
Maybe innovation like this Carbon XGame contestants have demonstrated, might allow us to burn all the oil and coal in the world without impunity. Maybe if we all hold our breath (one way to reduce CO2), the impact of our non-sustainable ways will not come back to bite us in the proverbial butt.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">SustainZine said: </span>"<span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">That means the the job of the CCS might turn out to be far, far bigger in the future, as we try to burn up the last century or so of fossil fuels over the next hundred years.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;" /><span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">We here at SustainZine consider "conservative" this way: The bestest, cheapest, cleanest gallon of gas is the one never extracted, never processed and never burned. The bestest, cheapest, cleanest tonne of coal is the one never extracted, never processed, and never burned (scrubbing or no scrubbing)." </span><div>
<span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3ffee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">In the meanwhile, innovation is the engine that will keep providing options, long after the most obvious alternatives have been exhausted. </span></div>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-39582026569132193922016-12-28T14:40:00.002-08:002016-12-28T17:20:28.841-08:00Long-term good for R&D, Patents and ProfitsA recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.<br />
<br />
Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/ceos-should-focus-on-long-term-study-says-1482847202" target="_blank">CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says</a>. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2511507" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.<br />
<br />
There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.<br />
<br />
Longer term companies spend more money on R&D, got more patents, had more patents that "flopped" and had more patents that were "hits". Flops and hits were based on the citations of their issued patents. Lots of citations means hit, not very many means flop. That has issues, but seems acceptable (unless you want to do a market analysis of the patented technologies).<br />
They also did a analysis of <i>exploratory </i>vs. <i>exploitive</i>. This was based on 80% vs 20% of the patents citations being internal to the company. So if lots of citations in my current patent refer to my own prior technology then it is a incremental, <i>exploitive </i>patent. They used a log scale on the number of patents, so a 0.568 correlation could be extrapolated on a logarithmic scale! A 57% correlation meaning that the decision to go long-term-centric resulted in a 57% positive change in the patents. Because they argue a cause-and-effect, they are an argument for causal correlation.<br />
<br />
Hits and flops of patents is interesting. First, the patent needs to be more disruptive (exploratory) and new to the company. Then the number of references to the patent were reviewed to see if it gets an abnormal amount of citation activity citing it. Flops would be exploratory that get very low citations. They first combined both hits and flops and indicate that total as a share of all (exploratory?) patents. This is statistically correlated at R-squared of 0.571. Trying a lot results in lots of failures and hits.<br />
Note that the number of flops and the number of hits were statistically correlated: 0.457 and 0.427. This is very interesting, if you aren't trying, then you aren't innovating. In this case, long-term focus means that you are trying and getting a good splattering of both. (They use the methodology here of Azoulay et al., 2011)<br />
<br />
Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.<br />
<br />
There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.<br />
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.<br />
<br />
They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.<br />
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...<br />
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!<br />
<br />
References<br />
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term
orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic
Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-8540330694644692692016-12-05T10:21:00.000-08:002016-12-05T10:21:47.681-08:00Prize of $24M to 12 scientists WSJBreakthrough Prize awards $24 million to 12 scientific researchers.<br />
<br />
This is in the <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/breakthrough-prize-awards-24-million-to-12-scientific-researchers-1480899602" target="_blank">WSJ article </a>... via @WSJ ... <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #666666; display: inline-block; font-family: "Whitney SSm", sans-serif; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">By</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Whitney SSm", sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: #0080c3; font-family: "Whitney SSm", sans-serif; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">GEORGIA WELLS </span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "Whitney SSm", sans-serif;">Updated Dec. 4, 2016 8:11 p.m. ET</span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "Whitney SSm", sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;">Categories from Genetics to Black holes. Big players from FB to Alphabet/GOOG were on site to promote these awards and recognition. </span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;">Very cool.</span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;">It is unclear if these prizes are attached to business engines or incubators. However, with that level of notoriety, and the prize money, these winners should be able to move forward with inventions that hold promise of commercialization.</span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;">Congrats to all winners.</span>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-73483241491445607852016-11-08T07:24:00.001-08:002016-11-08T07:24:26.824-08:00China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows - Troll Tolls Too - WSJ<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-patent-lawsuit-profile-grows-1478535586">China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows - WSJ</a>: <br />
<br />
China as a focal point of Intellectual Property, in the patent office and in the courts.<br />
<br />
This law suit by WiLAN is interesting to see how the "assertion" of patents can move and shift.<br />
<br />
Here's a little background on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiLAN" target="_blank">WiLAN from Wikipedia</a>.<br />
<br />
As you can see the company originally developed stuff so it would not be categorized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or Patent Troll in the ungracious term that is sometimes more appropriate for NPEs. WiLAN seems to be moving more steadily into the troll category.<br />
<br />
Now with a war chest of some 3,000 patents+pendings, WiLAN is a strong international force.<br />
<br />
In 2013 Daniel Fisher describes the Texas case where WiLAN had its core patents to the suit invalidated in "<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/07/23/lawyer-explains-how-to-bag-a-patent-troll-at-trial/#42ab97e6e6bf" target="_blank">how to bag a patent troll</a>". The stock (on the Toronto exchange) fell 33% to $3.25. In 2014, Apple <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/01/apple-wins-patent-suit-" target="_blank">won </a>again in California.<br />
<br />
Apple has won several law suits against WiLAN including a 2016 verdict. Look at the 6mo & 10yr <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/win.to?ltr=1" target="_blank">stock chart on Yahoo</a>, where it dropped from $3.40 to $2.30 in a few days at the end of July 2016. It now trades at $1.80.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/patent-licensing-company-wi-lan-continues-to-underwhelm-investors/article25009709/" target="_blank">Investor profile</a> is not so good, even with the Samsung licensing deal last year.<br />
<br />
WiLAN continues to build its patent portfolio.<br />
<br />
One of the things that a Patent Troll never wants to do, is actually go to court. Patents can be invalidated, remedies can be diminished, and the golden goose can give up the ghost.<br />
<br />
Gotta love the trading symbol that starts with WIN (WIN.to).<br />
<br />
There are several things that WiLAN could do to make it a much more legitimate player, and less of a troll. But those involve capital investments in R&D to invent, manufacturing to produce, sales and marketing to sell. That's a different business model. As long as investors are happy with investing in trolls, the trolls will rein supreme within their little serfdom of bridges.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-26499459780579989772016-11-02T09:30:00.000-07:002016-11-02T09:30:21.932-07:00Toll of the Patent Troll<br />
<div>
The Wall Street Journal has a great article about Patent Trolls and the Toll the cost on an innocent economy. Here's the excellent WSJ Article: <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-biggest-filer-of-patent-suits-wants-you-to-know-it-invented-shipping-notification-1477582521" target="_blank">America’s Biggest Filer of Patent Suits Wants You to Know It Invented Shipping Notification</a>, By RUTH SIMON and
LORETTA CHAO, Updated Oct. 27, 2016 1:11 p.m. ET.</div>
<div>
Small(er) companies are targeted by a non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes ungraciously referred to as a Patent Troll. IPZine previously <a href="http://ipzine.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-toll-of-patent-troll-by-any-other.html" target="_blank">discussed Patent Trolls</a> in their vario<span style="font-family: inherit;">us forms. Efforts to kill the trolls, or at least send them back under the bridge
have moved forward with mixed success. In the US, the court costs have been
paid by both parties historically, so winning in court, might still be losing. It
might be better to simply pay the fees that would go to lawyers and be 100%
certain of the outcome. A court ruling in 2014 has shifted this court cost dilemma.
(See Wikipedia article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll">Patent
Trolls</a>.)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Imagine a portfolio of patents related to predictive arrival. That is, when will a pro</span>duct, person or thing arrive. The patent portfolio has 60 some patents with about half still active. That affects almost every business concept from shipping, manufacturing, service and more. It certainly hits on most of the activities that occur on the internet as well. Airlines, shippers, buses, and school buses -- government and private -- have fallen prey to the transit NPE.</div>
<div>
So a small(er) business, attempting to do business, gets suddenly clobbered by legal notices and maybe even law suits. WHAT!!!??? The company probably has no patent attorney, so they scramble to find one. The patent attorney advises, at say $500 per hour, on the options and the potential costs. Litigation will cost $250,000, unless you lose; then it gets expensive!.</div>
<div>
So, what's a small firm to do? This fight is like taking a pocket knife to a gun fight. Might be better to pay some fee, say $25,000-$50,000 and possibly a licensing fee (say a small % of sales), then to risk the bankrupting if the business. </div>
<div>
All agreements are confidential, so it is hard to see who paid what licensing fees, and how much. The big shippers of FedEx and UPS have, apparently, full licensing for them and their clients. So a small company that uses their services, and only their services (of shipping and notification), might be in the clear. </div>
<div>
The big NPE in this Simon & Chao article is Shipping & Transit LLC. About 10 years ago, the company tried to do a product for buses and shipping (Bus Stop and ArrivalStar). But neither worked out. So now Shipping and Transit sit around suing companies. </div>
<div>
Not a single law suit has gone the distance. Consequently, none of the patents have been really tested. This is interesting since many of the patent claims are rather obvious and arrival/queuing goes back 50-100 years. </div>
<div>
It seems like some type of a class action suit would be possible and force the issue against the NPE. The secret to the success of the Patent Troll, however, is to pick off the prey a few small targets at a time. Then, those victims who survive, are signed into an iron-clad agreement that cannot be breached under penalty of death. The airlines, FedEx and UPS are not talking, but what an interesting conversation that would be. </div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
Jones gang of Shipping & Transit, way back in the day (circa Y2K) of
ArrivalStar were ruthless. Doesn’t seem like much has changed… </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
Keywords: NPE, Patent Troll, licensing, PLA, patent licensing agreement, economic development, </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-71454236509939994952016-11-01T11:14:00.000-07:002016-11-01T11:14:50.187-07:00Readying a Patent Portfolio for Sale<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In years gone by, companies with extensive patent
portfolios were loathe to sell these assets, strongly preferring to license
them.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">These Patent Licensing Agreements
(PLA) came in several flavors, most had some form of royalty payments for the
licensor and the fundamental was that ownership of the patents remained with
the original owner, i.e., the company granted the patent(s).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">While not totally different today, much has changed
in the disposition of thousands of US patents.
Patents are now sold in much greater numbers than in decades past. Some of the reasons for this are:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Corporate decision to shut down or sell
of an operating division<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Near term need to financially rescue
another part of the corporation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Shift in corporate direction/strategy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Pay a court imposed penalty<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Patent sales are now so commonplace that online IP
reporter sites like </span><a href="http://www.iam.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">www.IAM.com</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">
recently devoted a <a href="https://www.iam-market.com/blog-entry/infographic-readying-patent-portfolio-sale?utm_source=IAM+Market+Weekly+Newsletter+-+06%2f10%2f2016&utm_content=IAM+Market+Weekly+Newsletter+-+06%2f10%2f2016+-+2016-09-29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Misc+GBP">webinar</a>
to the patent selling process. This
process, as one can see, includes seven steps.
The assumption here is that the seller completed a validity check to the
extent possible on each patent offered for sale. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is noteworthy under Step 6 that the biggest
buyers of patents review around 1,000 seller packages per year. This clearly puts the onus on the seller to
develop a first class patent package. It
also suggests that this is a buyers’ market putting more of a burden on the
seller to find ways to get the most value for its assets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Keywords: patent, patent portfolio, licensing, PLA,
Patent Licensing Agreement, commercialization. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-4826301991133254662016-10-25T10:12:00.000-07:002016-10-25T10:12:07.509-07:00Maria Pallante out of Copyright. Unified IP?<a href="http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/10/copyright-intellectual-property.html">Maria Pallante</a>: out of Copyright Office<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Great article by Dennis Crouch over at Patently-O. (But then aren't they all great over there.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Apparently Pallante is out as Chief of the Copyright office. And the clamor is up as to why we don't have a unified IP at the patent and trademark office, kind of a US PTOC. (I guess that would be pronounced Pea-Talk, or PeeTalk, if you wanted to talk dirty.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Back in 2012, Crouch recommended creating an integrated US Intellectual Property Organization, or USIPO (you sip oh) akin to WIPO for the world of IP.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The argument for an integrated IP approach "... <span style="background-color: white; color: #141412;"> is that many operating businesses relying upon intellectual property (IP) rights typically do not focus on a </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #141412;">single</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #141412;"> form of IP rights but instead take a layered approach that includes some combination of patent, trademark, copyright, contractual, employment, trade secret, and design rights, for instance."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #141412;">With all the changes happening, or potentially happening, in the IP world this integration seems like a great idea when the time has come.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #141412;">Let's go with USIPO, not PTOC, on this one.</span></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-61459398647593415442016-10-04T12:03:00.001-07:002016-10-04T12:03:44.898-07:00Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images<a href="http://hyperallergic.com/314079/photographer-files-1-billion-suit-against-getty-for-licensing-her-public-domain-images/">Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images [UPDATED] - Hyperallergic</a>: <br />
<br />
Wow. Getty was selling public domain photos to everyone, including the photog herself.<br />
<br />
Getty was notifying people with the images that they must pay money to keep using them (on their own web sites, etc.). So the copyright owner, Carol Highsmith, gets a $120 bill for using her own picture on her own web site.<br />
<br />
Highsmith had donated the pictures to the library of congress for use by the general public at no charge.<br />
<br />
Getty says, no, we were simply providing a service by selling these photos to people.<br />
<br />
You say "potato", I say "Stolen Tomato".<br />
<br />
Oh, by the way,<br />
<br />
Highsmith is a really, really good photographer.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-74540047520716736892016-10-02T17:00:00.000-07:002016-10-02T17:00:37.830-07:00Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/olivier_scalabre_the_next_manufacturing_revolution_is_here?language=en">Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com</a>: <br />
<br />
Yes. It is here. The next generation of manufacturing.This is an absolutely spot on TED talk related to the world of manufacturing.<br />
<br />
Everyone in the USA wines and complains about the flight of manufacturing from the USA. We don't make anything any more. That's not really true. We still make a lot of stuff, but the percentage of the workforce that makes stuff is a much, much lower percentage.<br />
<br />
After 3 major industrial "revolutions" that have lasted 50-60 years each, we are due for another breakthrough technology/process/approach. It has now been about 50 years of slowing productivity. And the next revolution is already here.<br />
<br />
Monsieur Olivier has very profound arguments for manufacturing to return onshore. One of his arguments is mass customization that is best done near to market (onshore), especially with the latest technologies.<br />
<br />
There's another massive argument that pertains to the US, and not Europe (France). With new technologies of fracking & horizontal drilling, the US is swimming in cheap oil and (nat)gas. A huge proportion of manufacturing has to do with the cost of electricity -- cheap and clean(er) now with the major switches away from coal (toward NatGas and renewables). Transportation is cheap and more efficient. Plus, almost everything manufactured uses oil, particulates and natural gas. All plastics can, and should be manufactured at home.<br />
<br />
We have been flaring about half of the NatGas in the US. All we have to do is set up an electric plant (run electric transmission lines) and/or a plastics factory next to the oil fields to capture some of this free energy.<br />
<br />
Also, in 2015 and 2016, renewable energy has broken through that foggy glass floor. Without considering any of the externalities of coal, wind and solar are now cheaper for electricity. If the true costs of coal, considering all externalities are 2 to 3 times the price at the meter, then cheaper, better and cleaner energy is available at home. Far better in all respects than any factory in China or India.<br />
<br />
Watch the assumptions and assertions in Olivier's presentation and see how much and how quickly it all comes to pass.<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-39021814490147681612016-09-02T13:16:00.000-07:002016-09-02T14:46:52.208-07:00PTO 101 worst management Practices. Workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/31/patent-office-workers-cost-taxpayers-millions-by-playing-hooky-watchdog-finds/?wpisrc=nl_p1most-partner-1&wpmm=1">Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post</a>:<br />
<br />
The USPTO wins, hands down. They have implemented 101 of the all time worst management practices, all at one time.<br />
<br />
It may be worthy of a method patent application since no one has ever considered implementing all know mis-management practices at once in one organization.<br />
<br />
In reading the Washington Post article by Lisa Rein, you move from groan and wonderment, to GROAN and bewilderment, to actual PAIN and anger.<br />
<br />
All processes are broken as designed. It is reasonably hard to manage with a Union. There is no good rationale for unionization within government, really. Combine that with a cozy relationship where there is no accountability and no direct responsibility.<br />
<br />
To accommodate the new technology and new ways possible of working (telework, computer record searches, cloud computing, etc.) they regressed to pre-computer processes, measures and methods.<br />
<br />
People who work at home, don't have to log in to work. People who come to work have to time-clock in, but never clock out. People who don't work much during the week, log in huge amounts of overtime and receive big bonuses.<br />
<br />
When you read a report like this, you assume that you are likely reading the worst of the worst. This seems to be so prevasive, however, that it is embedded in the culture and the protocols, i.e., standard operating procedure (SOP, or in this case SOL). It appears that this is only a sample, so the problem is likely approximately a multiple of the problem. That is, the report is not a measure of the problem, but can be used to generate a huge estimate of how BIG the problem really is.<br />
<br />
<b>WHATTTT!</b><br />
<br />
This is painful to read at so many levels. This is a case study of government failure, management structure decay, and leadership incompetence. It is all the best of bad leadership practices integrated into one office.<br />
<br />
We at <a href="http://www.sbplan.com/" target="_blank">SBP</a> love innovation and want to see the USPTO do the best job possible for the world of innovation. We at SBP love telework, and believe telecommuting is one of the easiest, fastest, and bestest ways to start improving our carbon footprint (while savings massive amounts of time and money doing so).<br />
<br />
The only bright spot in the whole report is that poor performers are monitored (read managed) and consequently only 4% of the identifiable problems of fraud come from the poor performers. Good news, poor performers don't do a very good job, but they also don't do a spectacular job of cheating taxpayer, either.<br />
<br />
Managers are obviously a huge part of the problem in so many ways and at so many levels. This whole environment is not salvageable; congress needs to kill off everything USPTO related, and rebuild the organization with proper structure and incentives.<br />
<br />
Oh this is ugly...<br />
Painfully, UGLY!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-50122562021855533912016-09-01T13:22:00.000-07:002016-09-02T07:41:07.273-07:00The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike<a href="http://www.yikebike.com/">The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike</a>: <br />
<br />
Even cooler than the Segway, and multiple times as functional.<br />
<br />
Give a look at this YikeBike. When you see this bike, you will say Yikes!<br />
<br />
It is <i>reminisce </i>of the old <a href="http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/5/old-bike-designs-die-hard.html" target="_blank">High Wheeler bikes</a> with the monster wheel in front, and no gears (1-speed). But with a twist.<br />
<br />
The question to ask is this new bike a true invention? Is it innovation? Or is it both?<br />
<br />
It won the Time Magazine's intention of the year in 2009. Finalist in Nobel's Prize for Sustainability.<br />
<br />
Part of that question might be answered by how many patents the technology harbors.<br />
<br />
The main international PCT patent (2008-2009) has been filed in about 8 countries and does not appear to be issued. There are other interesting patent technologies integrated into the design. Here's the main patent <a href="https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2010007516A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20100121&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP" target="_blank">WO2010007516A1</a> from the EPO.<br />
<br />
It seems like a great alternative to the idea of our usual approach to jump into our SUV and drive a few streets to work or for a <i><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nunnun/2361650006" target="_blank">latte </a></i>-- 180 pound person being transported by a 2,000 vehicle using a 300-400 horse power motor.<br />
<br />
This idea seems to solve several problems with the bike as a mode of transportation, some problems that we never really knew we had.<br />
<br />
When you look at the product, you will wonder where the motor and the batteries hide.<br />
<br />
How does it keep from falling over in 3 different directions?<br />
<br />
What is a "farthing" and how can it possibly be considered a great selling point? Even if you call it a "mini-farthing". Do we really need a secondary axis, orthogonal to the primary axis?<br />
<br />
Can you take your YikeBike on your man bike (Harley) without being called out for having a "girlie-man bike"?<br />
<br />
Where can you get a YikeBike? Apparently, they have free international shipping.<br />
<br />
YikeBike comes with "the freedom to park wherever I DAMN please!"<br />
<br />
Will people say, "Wow", "Cool" and "hip", or will they say:<br />
<br />
"Yikes!"???<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-38857065933315914582016-07-22T09:52:00.000-07:002016-07-22T09:52:41.510-07:00Stronger Chinese Patent Laws Also Help U.S. Companies - WSJ<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/stronger-chinese-patent-laws-also-help-u-s-companies-1468994404">Stronger Chinese Patent Laws Also Help U.S. Companies - WSJ</a>: <br />
<br />
China is blasting past the USA in the patent world. They have already been the most busy patent office in the world for several years.<br />
<br />
But now they are the office with the most issued patents: 359,000 issues, up 45% from 2014. WoW!<br />
<br />
And we, in the USA are down 1% to below 300k.<br />
<br />
Interesting that they pay up to $4,500 (30,000 yuan) for patents. That's probably more than full reimbursement for the full patent costs in China. People could make money by taking patent applications elsewhere (non PCT) and file them in China. And, that's apparently what people did. It seems that the motive to get paid the government subsidies for issued patents would incentivate a nice bribery market.<br />
<br />
China first stepped into the world of intellectual property in 1985 when joining the World Trade Organization.<br />
<br />
Many foreign companies are able to sue, successfully, in China. But, of course, they would only sue once they knew they have a clear-cut case and inspected the political landscape.<br />
<br />
I still think that part of the massive move to China for IP is to help cut off the infringers at both ends of the product pirating pipeline from China to USA/EU/Japan: manufacture, distributor/exporter, retailer, and seller.<br />
<br />
"Serious obstacles" of IP in China for foreign companies by the State Department is, by all measures an understatement. However, there seems to be progress.<br />
<br />
Note that this article is more complete than the one printed in the paper.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-88950817322969031872016-07-18T11:04:00.000-07:002016-07-21T14:10:56.125-07:00ARM Holdings is giving up their "holding" to Sprint/SoftBankARM Holdings, the maker of chips and chip making technology has week a favorite <a href="http://ipzine.blogspot.com/2015/02/arm-takes-its-chip-business-beyond.html" target="_blank">here </a>at IPZine. They are basically an IP company holding lots of patents on lots of stuff. They specialize in energy-efficient, reduced instruction set (RISC) chip technology; build it and then license it out to chip makers.<br />
They have really taken off into the work of the <i>Internet of Things</i>.<br />
Today SoftBank (parent of Sprint) has offered to by ARMH in an all cash bid. The stock is up 50% today. Even at this elevated price, the price-to-earnings ratio is 70!. Compare that to Intel (INTC) with a paltry PE of 15. Profit margin of 35% vs 20% for INTC.<br />
ARM has remained independent and resisted the various take-over pressures. Until now. This changes somewhat the ARM dynamic of licensing tech to multiple players and making lots of money from licensing revenues (nearly pure profit). ARM has focused on tools and R&D and left the heavy work of manufacturing, distribution, etc. to their clients.<br />
This is probably a good time to start getting out of the stock; SoftBand (Sprint) is not nearly the same type of investment. Sprint is more of a utility play, not R&D.<br />
The drop in British Pound has made ARMH a far better deal to acquire. (ARMH is UK based.)<br />
On a separate note, SoftBank's interests in buying up chip makers might become more complicated with ARM Holdings, in the company's holdings.<br />
In the end, the independence of ARM Holdings didn't hold.BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-15989067759166134652016-06-15T10:34:00.000-07:002016-06-17T12:17:04.128-07:00Supreme Court Brings back Treble Damages - WSJ<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-makes-it-easier-to-win-big-damages-for-severe-patent-violations-1465830509?cb=logged0.6509505616519045">Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Patent Holders to Win More in Damages - WSJ</a>: <br />
<br />
The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court brings back the serious damages -- up to 3 times -- for willful patent infringement. Recent lower court rulings were making it virtually impossible to go after big, treble-the-losses, damages. That is the BIG STICK in patent infringement cases. Some companies strategy is to just keep infringing and simply let the lawyers do the heavy lifting. Smaller companies often do not have the resources to fight, especially if it becomes long and protracted.<br />
<br />
The threat of treble damages, kind of keeps every honest, usually. Take that away and infringement becomes much less risky.<br />
<br />
One of the first options for a patent holder is to enjoin the infringer from producing and selling. This can take some time; the patent claims are always contested, etc., etc. Fortunately, the USPTO has improved this process of patent review so that the strength and quality of the patent can be established early on.<br />
<br />
Of course, one end result of infringement is a licencing agreement. However, someone who will infringe your patent, might also go to great lengths to avoid giving an accurate count of the units sold and the royalties payable.<br />
<br />
During all this time, the infringing company is trying to develop a work-around so that they can continue selling the products but avoid the infringement. Market build, product established.<br />
<br />
If the patent has not yet been issued, the game is even more convoluted.<br />
<br />
On the flip side of treble damages is the patent troll (NPE). One would hope that judges would evaluate the case of a troll company that simply sits on a pile of patents with no intentions of producing any actual products and takes a toll off of any and all commerce in the industries/products where their patented technologies apply.<br />
<br />
*** Update below on June 17, 2016. ***<br />
<br />
An excellent Legal-centric focus of this ruling comes form Dennis Crouch at <a href="http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/patentees-providing-flexibility.html" target="_blank">Patently-O</a>. He also discusses "willful" and suggests that "egregious infringement" might be the new standard going forward.<br />
<br />
From a more business perspective, Joff Wild at IAM-media offered some interesting insights about <a href="http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/patentees-providing-flexibility.html" target="_blank">the Halo ruling</a>. He noted that Justice Roberts gave us the first official definition of "Patent Trolls", there s also a discussion of "efficient infringer", and this ruling obviously is a great step forward for patent owners, but a small, first-step.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-89952760498055223942016-05-13T08:57:00.002-07:002016-05-13T08:57:57.450-07:00A closer look at the PTAB’s new post-issuance review procedures - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business<a href="http://www.iam-media.com/Magazine/Issue/76/Roundtable/A-closer-look-at-the-PTABs-new-post-issuance-review-procedures">A closer look at the PTAB’s new post-issuance review procedures - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business</a>: <br />
<br />
Once a patent has been issued, there are Big, BIG changes as to the review process.<br />
<br />
Here is the most comprehensive take on these changes you will find anywhere.<br />
<br />
It is rather readable. It is rather detailed. And it is a critical-to-know follow on to anyone involved in the patent pipeline.<br />
<br />
Now the question, you want answered, does this new (additional) process help to mend a broken patent system?<br />
<br />
See what you think?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-91931451548589237702016-05-12T17:35:00.001-07:002016-05-12T17:35:00.732-07:00Tech is here. Improving faster. <p dir="ltr">Romm discusses the changes in solar, wind, EE, and batteries that keep beating expectations. Note the charts on estimates that have been consistently low. <br>
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3776728/climate-change-solutions/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=22</p>
BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-79717116369331257852016-05-06T08:16:00.000-07:002016-05-06T08:27:21.650-07:00A single round (1 round) Delphi study. How can that be? – Scenario Plans (<a href="http://delphiplan.com/2016/04/27/single-round-1-round-delphi-study/#comment-27">A single round (1 round) Delphi study. How can that be? – Scenario Plans (</a>: <br />
<br />
Give a look at the two blogs related to Scenario plans and Delphi studies related to the 2007 research by Dr. Cheryl Lentz. Notice how Delphi-type research can be used for all kinds of studies.<br />
<br />
These are two blog posts. One on the actual Delphi research doing two things that make it a modified Delphi: 1 round, and quantitative.<br />
<br />
The second post is<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #111111; font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif; line-height: 57.46px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<a href="http://delphiplan.com/2016/05/06/the-conundrum-of-middle-management-hr-experts-and-delphi-research/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #111111; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;" title="The Conundrum of middle management, HR experts and Delphi research.">The Conundrum of middle management, HR experts and Delphi research.</a></div>
<div>
We love Delphi for scenario planning and a mechanism for innovation. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
See what you think?<br />
<br />
Keywords, Scenario Plans, Horizon Planning, innovation, Delphi, Future, innovation, perpetual innovation, </div>
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>BizManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04567436767604729270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071152357928926162.post-20972916574418729932016-01-26T08:15:00.000-08:002016-02-02T11:33:37.963-08:00Busted, or not busted, our patent system One of the most revered, trusted and enduring of America's industrial and technological advantages is our patent system. Except that, it isn't anymore. Patents are included in the US Constitution, proof positive that the Foundering Fathers considered them critically important to the future of the country. That was then, this is now and you'll understand when you go to <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/01/fixing-broken-patent-system">www.wired.com/2015/01/fixing-broken-patent-system</a>. It was written by Jay Walker,the founder of Priceline in the late 1990s.<br />
<br />
Here is an insightful chronology of how much the patent system benefited the country up until the last several decades. The system is now too cumbersome and costly such that 95% (Walker's data) of inventions are not available to small and medium size businesses. Only the mega corporations have the human, financial and technological resources to fully utilize the system. A study is cited stating that liberating the patent system from litigation-based costs and risks would create $200B/yr in increased economic output.<br />
Although Hall & Hinkelman (2015) in the Patent Primer 3.0 boast of Intellectual Property, mainly patents, as one of "the great equalizers of our lifetime", not all companies who use patents are equally able to capitalize on them.<br />
References<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). <i>Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
for inventors and entrepreneurs.</i>
Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-329-17833-5 Retrieved from: </span><a href="http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan</span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). <i>Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0e:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs.</i> [Amazon Kindle eBook]. ASIN: <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0115BG35I" target="_blank">B010ISU7ZG</a></b><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06794119689501913783noreply@blogger.com0